The choice of whom is to be railroaded.

There are as many definitions of those that might falsely fall foul of the law. Arthur Thomas, and David Bain were cleanskins, among the similarities as to what happened to them was 'evidence' found that had earlier been 'missed.' A distinguishing feature between the two was that Arthur was 'verballed' whereas David was not. When I reflect on the fact that David was not 'verballed' (claimed to have made some kind of confession) I think that might have been uncertainty within the Dunedin Police or fear that ultimately the wheels might fall off the prosecution despite one or more officers claiming a 'confession.' Or it may simply be that their Auckland counterparts at the time had more readily as a tool of trade 'confessions.'

But to move to 3 others who were not clean skins when arrested. Haig, Dougherty and Watson. Haig was necessarily going to be of interest because the was the boat's skipper on which the murder happened. Dougherty was a burglar and well known to the Police. Watson was a 'rare' catch in that he brought with him a criminal past that would always be used predjudicially against him, another Police tool of trade. As much as the evidence is argued about Watson there always remains the argument that he was of less than desirable character, allowing short falls in evidence therefore to be bridged by 'character' and insinuation. So the 'choice' of Watson is evidently a 'good' one where the evidence against him seems far from clear.

Bringing us back to Dougherty and what I sensed was major disappointment for those that had helped him win his freedom. I fully sympathise with those feelings of disappointment but I feel they're unrealistic because Dougherty or anybody doesn't have to be perfect to be the subject of a miscarriage of justice, and the further they are from being perfect the easier to administer the moj. His life was a struggle before his false imprisonment, and sure he was paid money, but he unfortunately remained probably an inadequate person who had led a life of crime the issues for which remain unresolved. It seems that we expect things to be in black and white and easily understandable when dealing with the complexities of life, and the individuals that might suffer moj.

I remain aware that Arthur still gets maligned, even though without any doubt he is innocent. The same happens to David whom in my opinion has equally strong proof of his innocence, but there are others trapped in the system, chosen as targets to solve a crime, because a informer was ready to snitch on them for money and say whatever was necessary, or evidence was 'found' or the man or woman 'confessed' and as a country we need to be quickly able to get to those moj's no matter who is the individual involved, by an agency with lawful power and the appropriate distance from the Crown.